Delve into the detailed legal analysis and application of presumptions in a recent case involving cheque issuance. The courts thoroughly examined the evidence presented, highlighting the significance of rebutting legal presumptions and establishing a probable defense. This blog post sheds light on the importance of meeting the standard of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ in legal proceedings.
Facts
- Appellant sentenced to 6 months of simple imprisonment
- Ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 to the State
- In default of paying the fine, to undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment
- Appellant assailing the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No 485 of 2008
- High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, setting aside the judgment of acquittal
- Appellant convicted and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000 within four months
- The appellant borrowed Rs. 3,75,000 from the respondent on 12.06.2003 for money lending and land brokerage.
- Appellant issued a post-dated cheque of Rs. 4,00,000 on 12.12.2003 which included interest, but the payment was not complied with.
- Appellant denied taking the loan and lodged a complaint against the respondent, who was later acquitted.
- Appellant alleged that respondent filed a false complaint due to a property dispute between them.
- Appellant claimed that respondent assaulted and coerced him to sign blank papers and cheque leaves.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: A Critical Analysis
Issue
- 1. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wrongfully confined CW1 in the finance building, thus not establishing the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC.
- 2. The prosecution also did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily assaulted CW1, leading to no confirmation of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
- 3. There was insufficient evidence to prove the accused threatened the life of CW1, his wife, and children for not returning the loan amount in time, hence failing to establish the offence punishable under Part II of 506 of IPC.
Also Read: Validity of Debt and Enforcement of Section 138 NI Act
Arguments
- The appellants relied on the evidence of DW 1 to dispute the existence of any recoverable debt related to the cheque in question.
- Section 139 of the Act presumes that a cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability, unless proven otherwise by the accused.
- The Trial Court and the High Court did not find the testimony of DW-1 convincing enough to rebut this presumption.
- The respondent had an over-extended credit facility with the bank, leading to debt recovery proceedings due to failure to update the account.
- Courts usually levy a fine up to twice the cheque amount with simple interest unless special circumstances exist.
- Principles laid down in previous cases regarding Sections 118 and 139 of the Act were summarized.
- The defense raised by the appellants was not considered convincing or meeting the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’.
- The High Court’s decision to convict the appellant based on the presumption, as the defence did not provide sufficient evidence to counter it, was upheld.
- Standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities.
- Accused can rely on evidence led by them or materials submitted by the complainant to raise a probable defense.
- Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn from materials on record and circumstances relied upon by the parties.
- No fault found in the conclusions drawn by the trial Judge.
- Principles from M.S. Narayana Menon case regarding presumptions and preponderance of probabilities are satisfied.
Also Read: Enlargement on Bail in Illegal Mining Case
Analysis
- The defence put forth by the appellant in the instant case was that the documents and cheque were obtained by force by the respondent on 20.01.2004.
- The appellant claimed that the cheque was post-dated to 12.12.2003 and presented in February 2004, which raised doubts about its authenticity.
- The trial court held that the initial burden to prove the issuance of the cheque was on the complainant, but the evidence was inconclusive.
- The court discussed the legal presumption when a cheque is issued and pointed out the need to establish the existence of consideration.
- The appellant’s defence centered around the cheque being obtained by force and questionable validity due to post-dating, but the respondent successfully proved the issuance towards a legally recoverable amount.
- The court found that the incident alleged by the appellant on 20.01.2004 was not supported by the cheque’s date of 12.12.2003, which was within its validity period.
- The appellant’s contention was weakened by the fact that the cheque was issued within its validity period and the respondent had discharged the initial burden of proof.
- The court also considered the criminal background of the complainant and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.
- Ultimately, the court concluded that the defence put forth by the appellant was not probable, considering the established facts and legal principles.
- The judgement of the High Court overturning the trial court’s acquittal was set aside due to lack of proper reasoning.
- If the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act establishes a presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability.
- The presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable.
- The onus to rebut this presumption is on the accused.
- Section 118(a) of the N.I. Act provides presumptions as to negotiable instruments.
- The presumption is that every negotiable instrument is made or drawn for consideration.
- The presumption also applies to accepted, endorsed, negotiated, or transferred instruments.
- The presumption remains valid until proven otherwise.
- The conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate to acquit the appellant was not justified.
- The learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in his conclusion, even though detailed reasons were not provided.
- The appellant’s case cannot be accepted as a probable defense since the same aspect had already been considered in a separate proceeding where the respondent was acquitted.
Decision
- The parties shall bear their own costs.
- Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
- No reason to interfere with the judgment dated 18.08.2010, passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.485/2008.
- The appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
Case Title: K.S. RANGANATHA Vs. VITTAL SETTY (2021 INSC 837)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001860-001860 / 2011
